Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Felony Bench

felonybench.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 367 posts

Re: Felony Bench

#11

Post by GPerson »

lokar wrote: post #9
john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…

Can’t gross negligence or indifference to consequences lead to a felony?

AI corps rely on willful distortions of intent in laws to get away with moral crimes all the time.

Edit: changed labs to corps because it’s time to stop pretending these are places of science.

Re: Felony Bench

#12

Post by john_strinlai »

lokar wrote: post #9
john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> Felony Bench counts unique instances where AI agents inadvertently compromise or affect third-party entities. a bit silly, as one typically has to prove intent (which is why security researchers don't get slapped with felonies all the time). "inadvertently" and the existence of guardrails/sandboxes/etc make it pretty unconvincing that these incidents were intentionally malicious. still a fun thing to track, but the…

Can’t gross negligence or indifference to consequences lead to a felony?

i dont think any of these cases meet the bar of gross negligence, which is a pretty high bar. it requires proving a "conscious and reckless disregard".

which, again, sandboxes and guardrails and such would make a gross negligence argument unconvincing.

Re: Felony Bench

#13

Post by peter_d_sherman »

>"Exploited auth failures in an API to cancel other people's gym classes"

An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony?

?

Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people?

Heck, don't people fail all the time at holding reservations for other people?

You know, like in Seinfeld's "Alternate Side" Episode (S3 E11):

Jerry (to car rental attendant): "You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation... and that's really the most important part of the reservation -- the holding!"

:-)

Not holding a reservation should not be a felony... it should be a minor infraction at best, a Class C Misdemeanor (the least serious kind) at worst...

Also, there should be no jail time...

And no fine...

The criminal penalty for not holding other people's reservations should be that you actually have to start holding other people's reservations!

That's the Court sentence!

You actually have to start holding other people's reservations!

:-)

(You know, "let the punishment fit the crime!" :-) )

Re: Felony Bench

#15

Post by john_strinlai »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #13

>"Exploited auth failures in an API to cancel other people's gym classes" An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony ? ? Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people? Heck, don't people fail all the time at holding reservations for other people? You know, like in Seinfeld's "Alternate Side" Episode (S3 E11): Jerry (to car rental attendant): "You know how to take the reserva…

>An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony? Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people?

the difference is intent.

if a concierge/booking system makes a mistake (or has an unintended bug or whatever), no crime.

but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) use an API in an obviously unintended way to revoke other people's reservations, that would fall under the computer fraud and abuse act (in the usa).

Re: Felony Bench

#17

Post by peter_d_sherman »

john_strinlai wrote: post #15
peter_d_sherman wrote: post #13

>"Exploited auth failures in an API to cancel other people's gym classes" An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony ? ? Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people? Heck, don't people fail all the time at holding reservations for other people? You know, like in Seinfeld's "Alternate Side" Episode (S3 E11): Jerry (to car rental attendant): "You know how to take the reserva…

> An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony? Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people? the difference is intent. if a concierge/booking system makes a mistake (or has an unintended bug or whatever), no crime. but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) use an API in an obviously unintended way to revoke other people's reservations, that would fall under the computer…

>"the difference is

intent."

>"but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) use an API in an obviously

unintended

way to revoke other people's reservations..."

?

Re: Felony Bench

#18

Post by lokar »

john_strinlai wrote: post #12
lokar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t gross negligence or indifference to consequences lead to a felony?

i dont think any of these cases meet the bar of gross negligence, which is a pretty high bar. it requires proving a "conscious and reckless disregard". which, again, sandboxes and guardrails and such would make a gross negligence argument unconvincing.

How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?

Re: Felony Bench

#19

Post by bastawhiz »

Well it's not a benchmark, and it's not really representative of...anything except volume of research and what gets publicized. This mostly just measures how much testing each company does on models with relaxed guardrails and then talks about it. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion you can draw from that. Meta might have the most evil models but if they're piddling around not testing it, they won't ever find themselves with a "high score."

Re: Felony Bench

#20

Post by john_strinlai »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #17
john_strinlai wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An AI cancelling other people's gym classes is a felony? Don't computer systems fail all the time at holding reservations for people? the difference is intent. if a concierge/booking system makes a mistake (or has an unintended bug or whatever), no crime. but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) use an API in an obviously unintended way to revoke other people's reservations, that would fall under the computer…

>"the difference is intent ." >"but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) use an API in an obviously unintended way to revoke other people's reservations..." ?

i am not quite sure what your question is, as you simply quoted me and then put a question mark... i think you are confused that i used "intent" in one context, and "unintended" in a different context, is that right?

the first sentence: the difference is the intent of the person who caused the cancellations

the second sentence: but if i (or an agent working on behalf of me) abuse an API to do things it was not meant or designed to do, such as cancelling someone else's reservation

Post reply on HN